Hey, thanks for the mention, Gutterscream. I think the review turned out fine. I'm flattered.

If you have not heard Alphaville, you are exceptionally lucky. I thought there were no homosexual castrato singers in the 20th century, but they prove me wrong, and do that with 80's synth pop. Awful.

Frankly I don't see why anyone would care, beyond maybe some irrational urge to see a band's artistic prowess rewarded with financial and popular success. Personally I don't think any of the Big Four are the best thrash has to offer, and in other genres as well the most popular/financially successful bands are never the best.

I agree with the bulk of that. And yet, in spite of people claiming not to care about popularity (and knee-jerk spurning anything that is popular, regardless of quality) there are many who keep trying to insist that their pet bands coulda woulda shoulda been huge.

I admit to occasionally falling prey to that, as you can see a bit in my review for Psychotic Waltz's first album, but that's less "they should've been huge" than "they shouldn't have been totally unknown and constantly ripped off." Plus, I also to posit reasons as to why they didn't make it big, so it's not just one-sided whining.

Anyway, while I certainly don't automatically dislike popular bands without hearing them, I am inclined towards skepticism; to achieve popularity, so many bands have compromised their own personal vision (and hence quality) that a popular band which has remained true to itself is a rarity, rather than the norm. Not that every popular band has blatantly "sold out", but rather most tend to pander to a certain degree to shallow instincts and emotions.

Agreed, part and parcel.

From caspian's latest Fall of the Grey-Winged One review:



http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=12124#23414

From SouthofHeaven11's latest King's Necromantic Maelstrom review:

"Once upon a time, Thor and He-Man were fighting. He-Man swung his sword of power and Thor met it with Mjolnir, his mighty hammer. The resulting lightning storm killed them both, but from the blood and ozone and blackened bits of bone a new band was born."

Just hit me the right way, I guess.

There's so many typos within that Time for a quick edit and re-submit.

And what the hell did I mean with "or giving you a little taste.." ????

That would be a remarkable feat.

Well I assume you meant that he only gives up brief snatches of anything remotely interesting. Having listened to some of his work, it certainly seems consistent with my experience.

I was happy with vegetable/dessert thing, but I think the other line was kinda unnecessary, as the next paragraph goes into bigger detail.

I found this part of pinpals' review of Fatal Portrait to be amusing:


Hmmm, does anyone remember this little tune here?

"Halloween is the night
The legend says the ghost will rise
On Halloween they can't redeem
A restless soul from an ancient scene

At the sound of the demon bell
Everything will burn to Hell
Rise... rise... rise... It's Halloween
Rise... rise... The ghost will rise"

OH SHI-

And it's not as if singing about Satan was terribly amazing at that point anyway. By 1983 there were quite a few metal bands with lyrics explicitly involving Satan (yes, besides Venom).

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 0135#20948

Drives me nuts.

I was reading reviews for Emeth's "Insidious," and I found this gem:


Doesn't sound like much here, but he praises the band, and I think he mixed up terrible with terrific. From reading the whole review, it doesn't seem like English is his first language, but it is a fun read.

The new review for Moi Dix Mois - Dix Infernal is really irritating me.





The whole "the other reviewers just don't get it" part comes off as incredibly smug and obnoxious. I mean, if you're going to claim that the other reviewers "just don't get it," then you should at least provide a decent argument - instead, the reviewer decides to whine about the negative scores the album got. It's also implied that the other reviewers don't like the album because it's not "grim and true."

As much as I do love to indulge in visual kei, and more specifically into Malice Mizer/Moi dix moi, the reviewer in question does an arse of a job of reviewing the album. Perhaps one day I shall right these wrongs.

That shouldn't have been accepted.

I assume we're talking about the "When we meet again it will be the promised land..." part. The ecstatic shouted chorus that makes that song so memorable... How you get "upbeat/cheerful" or Ice-T (solo or Body Count?) out of that I have no idea.

Actually upbeat I could almost see, since the album does often have a sadistic pleasure sort of vibe, it's a fairly enthusiastic and excited tribute to the sick and satanic I'd say. But unintentionally cheerful? I don't hear it, does anyone else?

I don't know about that song in particular, but Deicide songs have overtly hooky and rather upbeat sections in them, I'm to sure I hear cheerful but I can se where someone would. Frankly, that's one of the reasons why I like them so much.

No passages for Metalsupremacy's Candlemass review - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=125#149525 - but for the record, the Black Sabbath medley is merely a bonus track and shouldn't be considered part of the original release or as filler, much in the way "Aggressive Perfector" on Haunting the Chapel isn't officially part of that release.

This can probably double in the 'what I hate in reviews' thread, 'cause it bothers me when ratings and overall views of albums are threatened by bonus tracks that really had nothing to do with the original product.

Agreed. I have no problem with awarding a few extra points based on some really good bonus tracks, but giving a lower score because a record label tacked on a few demo versions, or something? Weak.

I even have a problem with people putting on points for that, espeically when it makes a drastic change in the score. Like in UltraBoris's Like An Ever Flowing Stream review, he said his favorite song on the album was a bonus track, and that most likely increased the score by at least 5 points.

What do you think about something like Pleasure to Kill, in which the bonus tracks are usually considered to be a part of the album and flow very naturally from the main album? Should the reviewer exclude the tracks from Flag of Hate EP when reviewing it?

Probably just PTK. Flag was a separate entity, therefore, it should probably be reviewed on its page rather than PTK. At least I think so.

Well, I certainly wouldn't make a drastic change in the score based on bonus tracks alone, but on an album like Manilla Road's Crystal Logic or Psychotic Waltz's A Social Grace where the bonus track(s) are songs not released on any other album or EP, and are incorporated into the flow of the album rather than just tacked on at the end, I think it's reasonable to take them into account. I definitely wouldn't do any more than mention a bonus track if it's just a live track or a demo version or something.

As I said in my Candlemass Nightfall review, if "Battle Cry" had been released with the original album and not as the unearthed bonus track found on the 2CD edition of the album, the score would've bumped about five points. I make mention of the song, but don't include it in the final rating.

As far as PTK goes, it is it's own album and has its own entry here. What else are you going to do with a 20 minute ep other than latch it onto a full-lengther where you can fit 80 minutes of music? Now on the other hand, you have the US pressing of the ep with three songs from Endless Pain. Since they were released maybe within months of each other (if that), you can either review it with or without the additional tracks. It's not like you can't review the six song version if you've only heard/have the European pressing 'cause in reality the songs are taken right from the debut with really no differences, though you won't really know that unless you hear them.

Right, they're bonus tracks. The record company is trying to give you more bang for your buck, so even if what they hand you isn't all that remarkable, at least they're not taking stuff away, like some cd releases of Omen's Battle Cry and Exciter's Violence and Force where they substitute one song for another, which doesn't make much sense to me.

My version of Battle Cry has both.

Well, I'd have to say I agree with Failsafeman in that if bonus tracks are put on there in a way that it feels like they're part of the album, as opposed to just being thrown on at the end, then, no, I wouldn't have a problem with considering them as part of the album.

Unfortunately, my cd copy of Violence and Force is missing the great Evil Sinner. Pieces of shit.

One from the only Metallica fan on the internet (or so he'd have you believe!)

'Luckily, Metallica stepped in and begun to change things. Unlike the Hair Metallers of the time, Metallica didn’t wear heaps of hair spray and make up- they looked like they had came straight from the street. And of course, you’ve got the much more intelligent approach to lyric writing. Compare Motley Crue’s lyrics, from their tune ‘Girls, Girls, Girls’:

“Friday night and I need a fight
My motorcycle and a switchblade knife
Handful of grease in my hair feels right
But what I need to make me tight are

Girls, Girls, Girls, Long legs and burgundy lips
Girls, Dancin' down on Sunset Strip
Girls, Red lips, fingertips.”

Then compare Metallica’s lyrics on the title track of this album:

“Lady Justice Has Been Raped
Truth Assassin
Rolls of Red Tape Seal Your Lips
Now You're Done in
Their Money Tips Her Scales Again
Make Your Deal
Just What Is Truth? I Cannot Tell
Cannot Feel

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price We Pay
Nothing Can Save Us”.

It’s pretty obvious how big the difference is here. Metallica’s lyrics aren’t going to beat a Shakespeare sonnet for lyrical genius, but they aren’t terrible, and compared to Motley Cure and the like, they are pretty damn good lyrics. Of course, it would be fair enough to say that Metallica weren’t quite as popular as Motley Crue. They definitely didn’t get as much airplay. Nonetheless, this album went to number 6 on the charts, which defines a mainstream album fairly well. A metal album, released in 1988, that sold lots and yet was still quite intelligent? That’s pretty unique!'

Way too long a comparison, you could say "compare the lyrics in the title track to Motley Crue's 'Girls Girls Girls', big difference eh?" But too much waffle (which is necessary in Metallica reviews apprantely, I'm probably guilty too), the passage just a little absurd.

But the more words you use, the more justified you are! Didn't you get the memo?

Yeah, I probably could've just gone with the "compare the lyrics in the title track to Motley Crue's 'Girls Girls Girls', big difference eh?".

Good point, really. I don't really think it's a 'what the christ' moment, though. But sure, it's too long.

It's pretty close to a 'what the christ moment', it's a 33 line comparison

True, true. I could've sworn that it looked better when I posted it though. And i'm not normally one to waffle endlessly, either.

Right after I mention you in the best reviewers thread

Well yeah, you it's not like Motley Crue are well known for intelligent thought provoking lyrics. If another reviewer had said "These lyrics are on parr with the Crue's post-feminist diatribes in Girls Girls Girls" then maybe you'd have a better point.

Well, sure Crue aren't known for their good lyrics. I was trying to point out that AJFA was probably one of the first really successful metal albums - one that entered the mainstream, anyway- that wasn't all like 'Bitches wooooo'. Considering the public's perception of metal at that time was probably stuff like Motley and Poison, I thought it was valid putting it there.

I think so, anyway. Perhaps I should read my review again before commenting on it.